First Cause

[JDaniel]

A being who causes change must change himself to cause any change.

Razredge:

That is perfectly true of all beings except God. It is impossible ontologically and logically for God to change. Mutability implies dependence. What is moved is moved by another. The First Cause must be unchanging. If the First Cause changes, then it is dependent upon another mover, and I presume that one is yet dependent on another, ad infinitum.

God is Pure Simplicity. That means that he does not consist of parts. His mind is not a part. He IS his mind. A part has the capability of moving a creature consisting of parts, as a cat is able to move itself. But, picture the cat as nothing more than a big fur-ball: no legs, no head, no tail. That is infinite being. There is no relative place, no other relative objects, no parts, no interior organs, no eyes, no fingers, no hands (except in an analogical sense), and no feet or legs. God is supreme One-ness. That is what simplicity means with reference to God, and it is dictated by his absolute Infinity.

Otherwise it would suggest that the universe always existed since God always existed (and God does not change so can’t cause change)

Think this through: Is the universe all that God ever created?

Actually, the Church doesn’t teach that souls are created by God at conception - it hasn’t pronounced definitively on when the soul is created.

That is incorrect. See: “It is evident that the determination of what is right or wrong in human conduct belongs to the science of ethics and the teaching of religious authority. Both of these declare the Divine law, “Thou shalt not kill”. The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away.” - newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

God bless,
jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…That means that he does not consist of parts. His mind is not a part. He IS his mind. A part has the capability of moving a creature consisting of parts, as a cat is able to move itself. But, picture the cat as nothing more than a big fur-ball: no legs, no head, no tail. That is infinite being. There is no relative place, no other relative objects, no parts, no interior organs, no eyes, no fingers, no hands (except in an analogical sense), and no feet or legs. God is supreme One-ness. That is what simplicity means with reference to God, and it is dictated by his absolute Infinity.

Divine Unicity is the most beautiful of G-ds qualities. It hints at G-ds ineffable nature. The philosophers G-d who we so often speak of is revealed as an awesome and terrible G-d beyond our ability to comprehend.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Divine Unicity is the most beautiful of G-ds qualities. It hints at G-ds ineffable nature. The philosophers G-d who we so often speak of is revealed as an awesome and terrible G-d beyond our ability to comprehend.

You quote Job in your signature line. Have you read the claims made in Job and objectively looked at them?

 

[razredge]

Yes, God is identical to His nature, but the universe is God’s creation and not His nature. God does not need to change, and it is impossible for Him to do so because He is perfect. If a perfect thing can change in any way, shape, or form, then it wasn’t perfect in the first place. All creation is evidence of God’s Intelligent Design, and bears witness of Him; but God’s creation does not stand as an equivalent to His nature in that His creation does change and He does not.

You misunderstand the argument - while God is indeed separate from creation, He must have changed/decided to cause the universe so he does change to some degree at least. Of course He is God so his Being does not change but some part of Him logically has to - if He is indeed able to cause events.

 

[razredge]

Razredge:

That is perfectly true of all beings except God. It is impossible ontologically and logically for God to change. Mutability implies dependence. What is moved is moved by another. The First Cause must be unchanging. If the First Cause changes, then it is dependent upon another mover, and I presume that one is yet dependent on another, ad infinitum

I think we’re arguing semantics here.

God is Pure Simplicity.That is infinite being. There is no relative place, no other relative objects, no parts, no interior organs, no eyes, no fingers, no hands (except in an analogical sense), and no feet or legs. God is supreme One-ness. That is what simplicity means with reference to God, and it is dictated by his absolute Infinity.

Yes, God is a mind and minds think - and thinking necessarily entails some sort of change.

And I don’t think God is an absolute infinite - what does that even really mean? There are no actual infinities only conceptual ones.

The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away." - newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm[/INDENT]

The Catholic encyclopedia is out of date - the Church teaches that life begins at conception but has not decided on when the soul is created by God:

Have you ever had someone tell you that the Catholic Church does not teach that the human soul is infused into the body at conception? Would you be shocked to learn that this is pretty much true? The Church holds that a “human being” begins at conception, but you will not find any official Vatican statement asserting that there is a “human person” at conception.

ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=1005

While it is true that the Church teaches that the intentional and direct destruction of human embryos is always immoral, it would be incorrect to conclude that the Church teaches that zygotes(a single-cell embryo) or other early-stage embryos are persons, or that they already have immortal, rational souls. The magisterium of the Church has never definitively stated when the ensoulment of the human embryo takes place. It remains an open question.

ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=305

A smart position frankly - because they’re are a whole lot of issues with souls being granted at conception.

 

[rossum]

The logical necessity of First Cause is the result of its negation being a contradiction.

I suspect that we are not going to agree on the possibility of a cause existing without an effect. Instead I shall take a different tack to show that a First Cause is dependent on something.

You say that a First Cause is logically necessary. In that case there is some logic leading up to a final conclusion, “Therefore a First Cause must exist.” Let us examine that logic. In particular, the premises that go into the beginning of the syllogism. I don’t know precisely what logic you are using, but in most such logical arguments I have seen there are two main premises: first that we see things existing now and second that the universe had a beginning. Obviously if one or other of these were false as premises then a First Cause would not be logically necessary. Hence we can say that a First Cause is dependent on the premises used in the logical argument to establish it.

My argument about the First Effect works on the basis of the first premise, that something exists.

For a change I will switch to the second premise. In an eternal universe there is no logical need for a First Cause and indeed no place for it to go. Wherever you place it the universe was already in existence. Hence your First Cause is dependent on the universe being non-eternal and not eternal. There is another dependency. The Buddhist universe is eternal of course.

First Cause is logically necessary. That means it is precedent to any other beings.

But if there are no other beings then there is no logical requirement for a First Cause. The first of the two logical premises fails. The premise is only true after some other being exists.

rossum

 

[rossum]

It appears that we are at a log-jam on this, then.

I suspect so, but it has been an interesting log-jam.

Dictionary.com: 1. permanent, unending. Eternal, endless, everlasting, perpetual imply lasting or going on without ceasing. That which is eternal is, by its nature, without beginning or end: God, the eternal Father. That which is endless never stops but goes on continuously as if in a circle: an endless succession of years. That which is everlasting will endure through all future time: a promise of everlasting life. (colour added)

Your own definition supports my contention. A soul has a beginning so it is not eternal.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You say that a First Cause is logically necessary. In that case there is some logic
…to establish it.

Yes, there is logic to establish it. I have been talking about it for awhile now. Our definition of G-d is Actus Purus, the very act of existing. The negation of the act of existing is the act of not existing, which is a logical contradiction because something must exist to act. This demonstrates that First Cause is logically necessary by the technique referred to as proof by contradiction. Its a standard method of analysis in a number of logical systems, including prepositional, symbolic, and mathematical modes. This is why First Cause must be, regardless of any other factors. Its an inescapable truth.

 

[rossum]

The negation of the act of existing is the act of not existing, which is a logical contradiction because something must exist to act.

Therefore the First Cause is contingent on the existence of something. If there was nothing then a First Cause would neither be required nor possible.

Now consider what exists before the First Cause acts.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Therefore the First Cause is contingent on the existence of something. If there was nothing then a First Cause would neither be required nor possible.

Question:* What is First Cause contingent on*

Now consider what exists before the First Cause acts.

Its logically impossible to consider what exists before the act of existing.

 

[rossum]

No-thing is the same thing as Something?

Of course not, and that was not my argument.

The First Cause is contingent on two things. First that the universe exists and second that the universe had a beginning.

If the universe did not exist then there would not be a requirement for a First Cause. Hence the First Cause is dependent on there being an existing universe.

If the universe did not have a beginning then again there is no requirement for a First Cause. Hence the First Cause is also dependent on there being a beginning to the universe.

None of that relies on nothing being something.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Of course not, and that was not my argument.

The First Cause is contingent on two things. First that the universe exists and second that the universe had a beginning.

If the universe did not exist then there would not be a requirement for a First Cause. Hence the First Cause is dependent on there being an existing universe.

If the universe did not have a beginning then again there is no requirement for a First Cause. Hence the First Cause is also dependent on there being a beginning to the universe.

None of that relies on nothing being something.

rossum

I don’t understand. I just explained the proof that First Cause is logically necessary very very specifically. Do you not understand the idea of proof by contradiction? Do you not understand that being logically necessary absolutely excludes the logical possibility of being contingent? What am I missing here?

 

[JDaniel]

Divine Unicity is the most beautiful of G-ds qualities. It hints at G-ds ineffable nature. The philosophers G-d who we so often speak of is revealed as an awesome and terrible G-d beyond our ability to comprehend.

Warpspeed:

Excellent. I had not thought of it that way. Thank you.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I think we’re arguing semantics here.

Razredge:

No: not at all.

Yes, God is a mind and minds think - and thinking necessarily entails some sort of change.

If God does nothing else in precisely the same way that we mere humans do, why must he, then, think precisely like us? Think about it: He exists in a Now. For us the Now is so fleeting that it is shorter than the smallest span of ‘time’. But, what is an eternal now? That is the Now of infinite being. We can only intellectualize the idea with our wholly insufficient vocabulary and our exceedingly small minds.

And I don’t think God is an absolute infinite - what does that even really mean? There are no actual infinities only conceptual ones.

In the natural order, that is, in the arena of material, natural things, that is correct. There is no such thing as an actual infinity. But, now, you are limiting God by puny human concepts again. God is in the supernatural order. He is not limited by puny human concepts of mathematical infinity.

"Infinite being is therefore superior to the limitations of material volume and of discursive reason. Infinity is spiritual greatness of a unique and superlative order. Our mental imagery and our relative concepts of spatial extension are therefore incapable of representing it.

“God’s Omnipresence or spiritual immensity is thus entirely different from the mode of ‘presence’ whereby finite objects ‘occupy’ a defined place and sustain a relative position in regard to each other. The Infinite is ‘present’ according to its subsistent mode of being. All that is related to the infinite is related to the whole of infinity, for no partial relation is possible in regard to that which is indivisible. To be restricted to any spatial position is itself a limitation. The human mind, though finite, is in some respects superior to material or spatial restrictions, and Infinite Spirit transcends them all. It is by uniting the idea of spiritual life with the negation of all limitations that we can attain the most adequate mental ‘analogue’ of the positive infinity of supreme being. The phrase ‘infinite matter’ would be self-contradictory. Subsistent Mind can alone be consistently thought of as Infinity, as the philosophies of East and West abundantly illustrate.” - The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol I, pp 90 - 91.

The Catholic encyclopedia is out of date - the Church teaches that life begins at conception but has not decided on when the soul is created by God:

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia is out of date? On each page of it it clearly states that its copyright date is 2009. That’s not “out of date” by any measure.

ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=1005

“We no longer see here Donum vitae’s language of ‘as if,’ but instead we see the words ‘the embryo has.’ But DP still has not stated point-blank that ‘the embryo is a person.’ We will not find that expression anywhere in the text. Nonetheless, it would seem that this is the only conclusion that one could possibly draw, for if it is true that the embryo undergoes no change in nature throughout its development, and if it is true that the embryo, by its very nature, has the dignity of a person, then it must also be true that the embryo is a person—and from the moment of conception.” - last paragraph of the web page you sent me to.

ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=305

“There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation [implantation in the uterus]. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent.” - from the above link.

Yes. An extremely minor difference. As I recall from my teaching days, 48 hours is generally allowed for the two chromosomes to match up. Clearly, while there is “life,” (in the sperm and the egg) no human form has yet been contributed to the matter. This is the period of meiosis and the movement of the resultant half-chromosomes into proximity with each other to form a zygote. These stages, or movements, take some time. They are generally concluded, as I recall, within the first forty-eight hours after sexual union.

But, here, one must consider “contraception.” To annihilate a potential human child, i.e., to alter or thwart the inevitable sequence of the coming-to-be of the zygotic stage, is a direct outgrowth of the idea of immanent fertilization and the creation, with God, of a new human being.

A smart position frankly - because they’re are a whole lot of issues with souls being granted at conception.

Such as?

God bless,
jd

 

[shoe]

You misunderstand the argument - while God is indeed separate from creation, He must have changed/decided to cause the universe so he does change to some degree at least. Of course He is God so his Being does not change but some part of Him logically has to - if He is indeed able to cause events.

I agree that God is separate from His creation but disagree that God has parts that logically can change. Things that have changing parts must change in a series of steps in the course of time (changed things must have a beginning and an end). That is to say only those things that exist in time can change. Therefore, changes can happen only within time; however, God is timeless, without beginning or end, and therefore is changeless. And also things that change usually change for either the better or the worse; but God, being perfect in all His nature, cannot become better or worse.

 

[JDaniel]

I suspect so, but it has been an interesting log-jam.

Rossum:

No doubt!

Your own definition supports my contention. A soul has a beginning so it is not eternal.

Very clever! But, that part of the definition is a very small part of it and appears not to be the primary part. The primary part - and about 90% of the examples given - clearly support my contention.

God bless,
jd

 

[rossum]

I don’t understand. I just explained the proof that First Cause is logically necessary very very specifically.

I did not see that. What I saw was something different:

Our definition of G-d is Actus Purus, the very act of existing. The negation of the act of existing is the act of not existing, which is a logical contradiction because something must exist to act. This demonstrates that First Cause is logically necessary by the technique referred to as proof by contradiction.

This is not about the First Cause, it is about God. You start with God and switch to First Cause without providing any justification. You are assuming an identity between God and the First Cause without showing that such an identity must exist.

I therefore ignored the first part of your argument which referred to God and not to the First Cause. You are equivocating here between God and the First Cause.

You say “God is … the very act of existing”. If nothing exists then that definition is moot. Such a definition of God requires that something exists, for without something then there is no “act of existing”. This equates to a dependency on the existence of the universe, or of at least something. Hence your equivocation fails even before it is made. Your God is dependent hence your equating God to the First Cause renders the First Cause also dependent.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I did not see that. What I saw was something different:…You are equivocating here between God and the First Cause.

You are misunderstanding what a fallacious equivocation is. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Equivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time. For example:…
*
A feather is light.

What is light cannot be dark.

Therefore, a feather cannot be dark. *

An equivocation would require me to use the same term with two different meanings. I used two different terms with the same meaning. That is not an equivocation as you suggest.

You say “God is … the very act of existing”. If nothing exists then that definition is moot…

I already demonstrated that nothing cannot exist, its an impossibility because it is a logical contradiction

So, there was no equivocation as I demonstrated, and I have already demonstrated the refutation of the second argument an existent nothing is an impossibility. The logical proofs presented have not changed, nor can they by definition. So what is next? It seems like we are at a point where an admission of the logical proof by contradiction is warranted.

 

[rossum]

I used two different terms with the same meaning.

I dispute that they have the same meaning. You need to show me that they do, you cannot just assume it. I withdraw “equivocation” and replace it with “unsubstantiated assumption”.

I already demonstrated that nothing cannot exist

I am not asserting the existence of a ‘nothing’ I am asserting that if there is no entity with the property of existence then your God is moot. That still leaves you with the task of showing that God is identical to the First Cause…

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I dispute that they have the same meaning. You need to show me that they do, you cannot just assume it. I withdraw “equivocation” and replace it with “unsubstantiated assumption”.

We use First Cause and G-d refer to the same being who is the act of existing.

I am not asserting the existence of a ‘nothing’ I am asserting that if there is no entity with the property of existence then your God is moot…

Here where you say “no entity” it means the same thing as **“no thing” or “nothing”. **So by saying **“if there is no entity” **it means the same thing as **“if there is nothing”. **You posit an existent nothing inadvertantly, but its still a logical impossibility because it is a contradiction. The act of existing is logically necessary as I have proven.